From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 14:12:44 EDT
As far as the text is concerned, Nestle 16th ed., 1936, says that
_kamilos_ occurs in one minuscule (59) and a few other unimportant
minuscules and the Armenian version. The earliest minuscule noted is 6th
century, most 8th and 9th, but 59 is not dated in the "Explanations."
Apparently the Armenian version, not dated in Nestle, dates to the 5th
century. Since it is not found in the ancient uncials, it is surely
someone's emendation. I may note that, at least in modern Greek, iota and
eta are pronounced identically, but I don't know how far back itacism
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 01:38:56 -0700 "Don Winterstein"
> A closer look at Joseph H. Thayer's Lexicon and kamilos:
> First, Thayer's preface indicates that his work dates from 1889--not
> later than Liddell and Scott. (Furthermore, the Publisher's
> says he was a Unitarian and that some of his definitions reflect
> teaching (e.g., Christ was a mere man).)
> With respect to kamilos, Thayer refers to Liddell and Scott
> (1883-7th ed.)
> and Franz Passow (1857); so proof that the word was not invented
> seems to
> depend crucially on whether Thayer's "Schol. on Arstph. vesp.
> " (see
> below) refers to a pre-NT manuscript or not. (For contemporary
> readers it
> would be nice if Thayer had a more complete list of his
> Evidence that Thayer's "Schol. on Arstph. vesp. " in fact does
> refer to such pre-NT manuscript is in an appendix, where Thayer
> kamilos as a possible "New Testament Greek" word. By this I assume
> he means
> the word possibly originated as koine.
> Conclusion: George is right, we need a modern reference. All along
> assumed Thayer was one, but he's not.
> > George Murphy wrote:
> > >
> > > If I may quibble: An expert on textual criticism may correct me
> > is no
> > > "reading" /kamilon/ = "rope" rather than /kamelos/ = "camel".
> It is
> > instead a "textual
> > > emendation" - i.e., a guess at what the text might originally
> have been.
> > That is a
> > > legitimate procedure when the text we have is in such disarray
> that it
> > doesn't make any
> > > sense - as is the case in some places in the OT, like parts of
> Job. But
> > otherwise it's
> > > not appropriate.
> > >
> > > & here's something I hadn't noticed before. On looking up
> /kamilos/ in
> > > antique (1843!) Liddell-Scott, I find this note:
> > >
> > > "/a rope/: but probably invented merely to explain away the
> > passage
> > > in the N.T., /for a camel to go through the eye of a needle/,
> > a rope might
> > > seem to us a more prob. image: but the Arabs have a proverb,
> /like an
> > elephant going
> > > through a needle's eye/; and /to swallow a camel/ occurs in
> N.T.; so
> > this is
> > > needless."
> > >
> > > But this was written before the discovery of a lot of the koine
> > so
> > > don't rely on it without checking some newer reference.
> > Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (copyright
> 1977) says,
> > in part:
> > "kamilos, ou, ho, a cable; the reading of certain Mss. in Mt. xix.
> 24 and
> > Lk. xvii. 25..... The word is found only in Suidas [1967c.] and
> > on Arstph. vesp. .... "
> > I don't comprehend all of Thayer's abbreviations and annotations,
> but to
> > this means that, apart from some NT manuscripts, the word is found
> in only
> > two other ancient manuscripts, one from around 1100 A.D. (Suidas)
> and the
> > other (possibly) from ancient Greece (Aristophanes?). So
> apparently it
> > wasn't "merely invented" but was very rarely used.
> > Don
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 14:38:02 EDT